Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

thedailyadda.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 445 posts

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#371

Post by lacy_tinpot »

exasperaited wrote: post #360
lacy_tinpot wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real evil people here are the "artists" that have this kind of attitude. I still remember the "Digital Art isn't real Art" people, which btw still exist among your snobby "Fine Arts" crowds. I think we should actually ban all digital art platforms, no Photoshop, no special effects, all hand drawn. And I'll use some weird weaponized empathy calling out for the human soul and human creativity. What a toxic bunch.

[removed]

Now you bring out the straw man as a defense? How about you use that idea for what you're typing as well.

You're not standing up for art and culture. You're not asking for a "little reflection". You are however just being a cynic. And cynicism is toxic. It's bad for health. It's a weird affliction. Worse it's actively harmful to society.

Optimism is better. Tools that create abundance are better. Managing scarcity is dystopian, and ultimately harmful. It's a mindset that needs to be purged. Creating abundance is a far superior mindset.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#372

Post by rpcope1 »

frozenport wrote: post #38
JCM9 wrote: post #16

We are entering the “Trough of disillusionment.” These hype cycles are very predictable. GPT-5 being panned as a disappointment after endless hype may go down as GenAI’s “jump the shark” moment. It’s all fun and games until the bean counters start asking for evidence of return on investment. GenAI folks better buckle up. Bumps ahead. The smart folks are already quietly preparing for a shift to ride the next hype wave…

Yo what’s the next hype cycle that smart folks like us should be working on?

Probably defense and robotics.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#373

Post by ghalvatzakis »

Jolter wrote: post #317
ghalvatzakis wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, these aren’t interviews for job positions

What kind of interviews do HR do, apart from job interviews?

Not HR either. I work for an experts network firm

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#374

Post by IgorPartola »

plantain wrote: post #57
IgorPartola wrote: post #34

What are the actual use cases that can generate revenue or at least save costs today? I can think of: 1. Generate content to create online influence. This is at this point probably way oversaturated and I think more sophisticated models will not make it better. 2. Replace junior developers with Claude Code or similar. Only sort of works. After all, you can only babysit one of these at a time no matter how senior you…

+50% productivity for 200$/mo is outstanding value! Most countries have 0-2% productivity growth per year!

This is a one time gain. Think of it like instead of doing the work yourself you are just pair programming with a junior developer whom you cannot trust to write secure and bug free code. You can probably optimize your interactions such that this “intern” does work while you do other work. But if it’s work blocks what you are doing, it’s just that now you work differently.

I toyed with it and found it to be less frustrating to set up the latest layout for a VueJS project, but having it actually write code was… well I had to manually rewrite large chunks of it after it was done. I am sure it will improve but how long until you can tell it the specs, have it work for a few minutes or hours or days, and come back to an actual finished project? My bet is decades to never.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#375

Post by IgorPartola »

jsmith99 wrote: post #234
IgorPartola wrote: post #34

What are the actual use cases that can generate revenue or at least save costs today? I can think of: 1. Generate content to create online influence. This is at this point probably way oversaturated and I think more sophisticated models will not make it better. 2. Replace junior developers with Claude Code or similar. Only sort of works. After all, you can only babysit one of these at a time no matter how senior you…

MS Copilot is quite useful for meeting minutes and summaries etc. Still not nearly as useful as good handwritten notes but saves loads of time.

Sure useful. But we are talking making money useful, not just nice. Like will it create 20% more revenue? 1% more? Or is it just a nice to have?

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#376

Post by vdupras »

dang wrote: post #348
vdupras wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

" Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. " " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I have trouble understanding how that guideline applies here. The original article shows how it's possible that we're about to see an AI bubble pop, the parent comment show generic american arrogance[1], and I come up with a historical example of such a mix of hubris and arrogance.

If my comment can be characterized as flamebait, it has to be to a lesser degree than the parent, right?

And I'm not even claiming that the situation applies. If you take the strongest plausible interpretation of my comment, it says that if indeed this whole AI bubble is hubris, if indeed there's a huge fallout, then the leaders of this merry adventure, right now, must feel like Napoleon entering Moscow.

But well, anyways, cheers dang, it's a tough job.

[1]: the strongest possible interpretation of "This is how America ends up being ahead of the rest of world with every new technology breakthrough" is arrogance, right?

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#377

Post by mbb70 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #34

What are the actual use cases that can generate revenue or at least save costs today? I can think of: 1. Generate content to create online influence. This is at this point probably way oversaturated and I think more sophisticated models will not make it better. 2. Replace junior developers with Claude Code or similar. Only sort of works. After all, you can only babysit one of these at a time no matter how senior you…

In healthcare, notes are directly correlated with $$$ for the hospital, because everything that is billed for must be documented with a mix of metrics (O2%, temp, lab results), events (orders, prescriptions, procedures) and notes (consultation notes, imaging interpretations, discharge summaries).

Billions get spent annually in administrative overhead focused on squeezing the most money out of these notes as possible. A tremendous expense can be justified to increase note quality (aka revenue, though 'accuracy/efficiency' is the trojan horse used to slip by regulators).

GenAI has a ton of potential there. Likewise on the insurance side, which has to wade through these notes and produce a very labor intensive paper trail of their own.

Eventually the AIs will just sling em-dashes at each other while we sit by pool.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#378

Post by jurking_hoff »

lacy_tinpot wrote: post #371
exasperaited wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[removed]

Now you bring out the straw man as a defense? How about you use that idea for what you're typing as well. You're not standing up for art and culture. You're not asking for a "little reflection". You are however just being a cynic. And cynicism is toxic. It's bad for health. It's a weird affliction. Worse it's actively harmful to society. Optimism is better. Tools that create abundance are better. Managing scarcity is…

[dead]

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#379

Post by rapind »

didibus wrote: post #263
rapind wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there's a lot of nuance you can't really capture in a study like this. How you use AI will depend on the model, the tools (claude-code vs cursor vs w/e), your familiarity and process (planning phases, vibe coding, etc.), and the team size (solo dev versus large team), your seniority and attention to detail, and hard to measure effects like an increased willingness to tackle harder problems you may have proc…

> As someone who knows they are benefitting from AI (study shmuddy) XD Look, I get it, I still use it, but you have to admit, people also think that various bogus home remedy totally helps them get over a cold faster. There's absolutely a possibility it in no way makes us faster. Now, you did say "benefit", that's more broad, and you implied things like polish, I've seen others mention it just makes the work easier,…

I consider myself to be something of a cynic. That’s not to say I couldn’t be bamboozled in some circumstances.. . but I think it unlikely is this case, because I am simply OK with AI being a complete failure if indeed it is. I don’t have an irrational need for this to work. If anything I was very skeptical to start with and was pleasantly surprised to find it useful.

I’m not pushing Amway, I don’t own any crypto, and I’m bearish on the S&P right now due the market cap concentration at the top. And yet I swear that claude code is working for me quite well.

> Now, you did say "benefit", that's more broad, and you implied things like polish, I've seen others mention it just makes the work easier, that could be a win in itself (for the workers). Maybe it's about accessibility. Etc.

Yes exactly, and this is the (ambiguous) metric that I actually care about. I suspect this study will go down in history as useless and flawed, not to be overly harsh :)

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#380

Post by jurking_hoff »

lacy_tinpot wrote: post #226
jurking_hoff wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

It doesn't because we already know it doesn't because just like think about it and it clearly doesn't. So everyone trying to make the technology is a big dumb dumb for even trying. Like is the conclusion we shouldn't even try? This kind of thinking ridiculous.

[dead]
Post reply on HN